About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
we follow the facts. we do not share outside the justice department, outside the f.b.i. the facts of ongoing investigations. we made the determination as we were going through the matter that there was not a threat to national security. had we made the determination that a threat to national security existed, we would, of course, had made that known to the president and also to the appropriate members on the hill. but as we went through the investigation, looked at the facts and tried to examine them as they developed, we were very -- we felt e very secure in the knowledge that a national security threat did not exist that warranted the sharing of that information with the white house or the hill. but when we got to a point in the investigation and it was very late in the investigation after a very critical interview occurred on the friday before we made that disclosure, when we got to that point when we thought it was appropriate to share the information, we did so. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite
was concerned, we went through a timeline. we went through representatives, the cia, and the fbi, and i think when members were able to see the time line, the sense was still the same. you have a group of extremists who took it vantage of the situation, and we lost four american lives. there were representatives from al qaeda and other groups. you had individuals with the ability to shoot mortars, and i think it shows it was a terrorist attack of sophistication. whether these people gain expertise from being in benghazi or being out there and fighting from that process, that is one thing. we are still focusing on the people who did it. we need to bring them to justice and make sure how this event occurred. so we learn from this so the american people will be protected in the future. >> what is the status of the fbi investigation? >> investigation on what? >> no lead or no witnesses to talk to? >> i think we need to have them work with the intelligence committee to attempt to identify who coordinated the attacks, and i think this is an ongoing investigation trying to get the intelligence commu
associated with general allan's nomination. i would refer you to the fbi in terms of the process seized they they follow. the white house counsel was informed and the white house counsel brought that to the president. on sunday, -- on monday evening, the president was notified that secretary panetta had referred the matter to ig. >> but time is a news conference? >> i do not have a time for you yet. >> did the fbi uses as part of a background check on alan? >> i would -- we do not discuss vetting issues. >> that is part of the confirmation process. >> it is not part of the confirmation process. the department of justice notified the white house counsel that there may be an issue associated with general allen's nomination. was nominated to be supreme allied commander. the hearing was pending. >> who is doing this background check? >> i would refer you to justice and the fbi for far from checks? >> has this been distracting on the president on other important matters? >> this in ballston percent -- is embossed important personnel. >> how much time does it take? >> i do not have the time.
the work of the imdwration service. >> you were turning finger prints over to the f.b.i. >> we worked with ice and turned over people when they were arrested. that is the responsibility of the federal government. we can't put that on the towns anywhere in this country. >> you can have the last word on this topic. >> there are three or four different issues. the original question was about rhode island and the drain on the resources. i've looked at that and the drain on the resources is pretty minimal because the number of undock meanted here who utilize the resources this gentleman is talking about is small, only in the dozens. so i'm not going to worry about the drain in rhode island because the numbers don't bear that out. >> what do they contribute to the economy? >> a lot of them have jobs. just because their undock meanted doesn't mean they don't work. i have a good friend who i won't name who is self-plode. he employees several americans and makes well over 100,000 a year but i have no problem with that sort of thing. i have no problem with the idea just because you're undock me
to the u.n. and she reviewed much more than that. >> we need to do a lot more to e. we do not have the fbi interviews conducted -- conducted after the attacks. we do not have the basic information about what it is said the night of the attack that was shared with congress us of this date. i remember the john bolton episode well. our democratic friends felt he did not have the information needed to make informed decisions for john bolton to be an ambassador . the democrats would not consider the nomination until they got basic answers. all i can say is we are not close to getting the basic answer is. >> i have many more questions that can be answered. -- that cannot be answered. >> after her meeting with senators, you and ambassadors season rice released a statement that said -- while we wish we had had perfect information days after the terrorist attack, the intelligence assessment has inevolved. no one intended to mislead the american people. the administration of the congress and the american people as our assessments the vault. evolved. the senate majority whip said his talks continued
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5